Topic
SMD Lunar Solo E misinformation/copyright infringement
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Gear Forums › Gear (General) › SMD Lunar Solo E misinformation/copyright infringement
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Feb 9, 2010 at 8:46 am #1571582
Ron explained everything. Took the right actions and the issue should be over. I'm not sure why it was an issue to begin with anyway or why it was handled the way it was? Can this thread be locked?
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:07 am #1571592Ron apologized to me personally and on the web, and removed the pics. Ok.
Feel free to roast me (as some above has done), I guess you have little care for respecting authors', musicians' and filmmakers' rights too. Ok. But the thing is, if he'd asked and given me credit, I'd have agreed immediately. But, sorry, not being able to contact the photographer does not mean that the photo is free for use.
According to a friend of mine who is a professional photographer, a standard settlement for this kind of action in Sweden would be about USD 550 plus about USD 300 per year of use — per picture.
As to why I decided to go public, the copyright issue is less important than the fact that two of the pictures were labelled as being from Alaska. Why this? I can only see one reason, and that would be to boast about the performance of the tent. A kind of false marketing, thus. I assume correct information about the performance of a tent is of some relevance to this community.
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:22 am #1571598+1 on the concept of talking with Ron first before posting about it on a message board.
why not give him a chance to rectify it prior to creating an issue about it publically? (e.g. don't make the complaint thread and THEN email him about the problem)
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:24 am #1571599My reasons for going public was stated above.
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:27 am #1571600How about everyone just giving this thread a rest? Johan and Ron already have their issue resolved!!
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 am #1571602> My reasons for going public was stated above.
Okay, but I still don't understand. Couldn't your email to Ron (prior to "going public!") simply include TWO points instead of one:
1. Hey those are my pictures… can you either credit me or remove them (my decision)?
2. If we agree for you to keep them up (credited), they are not from Alaska, they are from (insert proper country here).Feb 9, 2010 at 9:32 am #1571604Feb 9, 2010 at 9:33 am #1571605"I guess you have little care for respecting authors', musicians' and filmmakers' rights too"
You are lumping a picture of a tent that you posted to the web in with the work of authors, musicians, and filmmakers?
Clearly.
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:34 am #1571606>A kind of false marketing, thus. I assume correct information about the performance of a tent is of some relevance to this community.
Not tryin' to start any argument, but I'm just saying that Ron knows that we know about the performance of his shelters. It's well documented here many, many times what these shelters are good for and not so good for.
I believe that trying to deceive this community with a picture would be akin to trying to sell a Wiggy's sleeping bag to someone with a Western Mountaineering bag. It just doesn't make sense. It'd be REALLY tough to pull the wool over the eyes of this entire community. Some have tried–just doesn't work. There's too many smart and observant people here.
Check this link out, about 1/3 down the page. Ron says of the picture of the Gatewood Cape "Interesting though not recommended."
You do have your rights, and reserve the right to protect them to whatever degree you wish. Maybe Ron should have secured permission with the owners of the pictures first. I'm just saying that there wasn't any ill-intent or deception going on.
Feb 9, 2010 at 9:56 am #1571615I agree, far too many times it's hard to make a determination on a product because there just are not good photos of the product.
I have a few pictures of my Wild Oasis and Lunar Solo. I guess I'll need to send them to Ron to see if he wants to use them on his site.
Feb 9, 2010 at 10:10 am #1571624+1 to Tom C
+1 to Dave U
I would think its cool that a manufacturer used my pic.
Artist and musicians et. al use their art for their livelihood. I presume this is just some pic you took of your campsite.
I see where you're coming from, but… its just a photo album pic.
Feb 9, 2010 at 10:50 am #1571640This is pretty funny having a Swede complaining about Copyright on a US forum after what they have been doing to US copyright holders for the past 10 years. Pirate Bay anyone?
As for Bob, he is a photographer in his current vocation?
DMCA sucks. Law sucks. Bob educating people about DMCA takedowns was good. Him throwing a hissy after educating someone and then seeing them admit to not knowing the law – lame.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:09 am #1571647"You are lumping a picture of a tent that you posted to the web in with the work of authors, musicians, and filmmakers?"
That's copyright law, yes.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:14 am #1571650"This is pretty funny having a Swede complaining about Copyright on a US forum after what they have been doing to US copyright holders for the past 10 years. Pirate Bay anyone?"
*started to write something sarcastic, but realized the quote actually stands quite well for itself*
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:14 am #1571651"That's copyright law, yes."
+1.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:15 am #1571652"I guess you have little care for respecting authors', musicians' and filmmakers' rights too. Ok."
There's a big difference between someone snapping a quick picture with a cheap point and shoot camera and the work of authors, musicians and film-maker who expend and enormous amount of time, skill and creativity to create their art. I haven't looked at your photos so I don't know what they're like, but usually in these type of situations the photos in question are hardly art. If anything, Ron has created the art in the photos in the way of his fine tents. What matters here IMO isn't the technical details of copyright law, but rather if someone is stealing someone else's art which seems to clearly not be the case.
It amazes me how many people feel entitled to cash payouts when someone else uses their photo for a non-profit reason that usually has nothing to do with the art of the shot but rather to show an item that the picture happens to contain. Why did you start this thread to bad mouth Ron before you even contacted him? That's lame. There's no need to assume the worst (the Ron is stealing photos and using them to deceive his customers about the performance of his products) before talking to him.
I also run a non-profit forum about motorscooters and on several occasions I have wanted to post a photo of a particular scooter to show another forum member what it looks like. In the past I have used Google images to find a photo and then posted it into a forum post. I think it's laughable when someone finds their picture on a non-profit site or forum and then contacts you thinking they are going to get some big payout like it's invaluable art. 99% of the time these people park their scooter in their driveway, take some poorly exposed photo which means nothing to them, and then get all worked up when they find it online somewhere.
These things always end with the photos being taken down (since they are worth nothing to person who used them) and then the information contained in the photo is lost to people who may be helped by it.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:17 am #1571653Dan:
Where did you get that OP's looking for cash payouts?
1. Ron used photos without permission.
2. OP complained.
3. Ron apologized and removed photos.
4. OP accepted.End of story — except for those of us who drone on and on with our two cents — needlessly indignant, needlessly sarcastic and needlessly self righteous.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:21 am #1571655"Where did you get that OP's looking for cash payouts?"
OP-> "a standard settlement for this kind of action in Sweden would be about USD 550 plus about USD 300 per year of use — per picture."
The OP isn't directly asking for a cash payout but he is bringing up the topic and expressing that he feels a payout would be appropriate.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:22 am #1571656True that — but there was no attempt to solicit payment from Ron, was there?
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:24 am #1571660No, but you get the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that if Ron lived in Sweden where these laws are enforceable then the OP would want to be compensated along these lines.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:28 am #1571662""Where did you get that OP's looking for cash payouts?"
OP-> "a standard settlement for this kind of action in Sweden would be about USD 550 plus about USD 300 per year of use — per picture.""
I guess OP is me.
I wasn't looking for cash payouts, it was a way of trying to give a hint of what consequences this kind of action would have in Sweden, as I (as stated) have little knowledge of how it works in the US.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:29 am #1571663I think we're all in need of a fresh round of gear/trips/photos to talk about, rather than get lost in mostly nonsensical and off-base arguments. The relative down-time of winter provides a lull that is getting filled with pettiness and crankiness, rather than awesome gear reviews and discussions, amazing trip reports, and cool new techniques that make us want to go experiment with things.
I am not excluded from my own criticism.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:30 am #1571665Dan:
Different rules, different societies, different norms. But the impression I got was your condemnation of him for something that he didn't actually do. Pretty strongly worded IMO:
"It amazes me how many people feel entitled to cash payouts when someone else uses their photo for a non-profit reason that usually has nothing to do with the art of the shot but rather to show an item that the picture happens to contain. Why did you start this thread to bad mouth Ron before you even contacted him? That's super lame."
But really, IMO, this thread has turned lame (or maybe even more lame) after Ron's apology and OP's acceptance!
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:30 am #1571666we get it. you want this thread to end. but the OP didn't just "accept ron's apology" and end of story. he brought up (as above) what the laibility for it might be in Sweden, and also implied that Ron was perhaps engaging in false mrketing. doesn't sound like "apology accepted, end of story" to me. so folks are (rightfully so?) having a conversation about that.
Feb 9, 2010 at 11:32 am #1571667This thread is helping me make a lot of "face to name" connections to the types (I only see two distinct groups.) of hikers I run into out on the trails.
I'm sure a lot of you know what I mean.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.